Thanks to proposals in today’s Pensions Bill debate, some women in their fifties will be forced to work three more years than they had planned and not be allowed to retire, as they expected at 62 but obliged to work until they are 65.
Especially when the news coincides with David Cameron’s blatantly populist pop at deadbeat dads. For a supposedly well-educated man, David Cameron does come out with some po-faced nonsense. Suggesting that dads who fail to support their children can somehow be shamed into compliance shows such an utter lack of awareness of the real world that it is almost endearing.
Shame means something to people like David Cameron because he has something to lose.
For someone so desperate, desolate, and despairing as to be unable or unwilling to support their own child, shame is either a constant companion or a luxury they dispensed with years ago.
I don’t believe you can shock people into taking financial responsibility. It takes years, sometimes generations, to cotton on to the idea of delayed gratification. It’s a concept I still struggle with every day and I have had every advantage known to man (and woman) – stable family background, excellent role models, financial stability tempered by day to day frugality….(Holidays in the sun? Tick. Same swimsuit for five years? Tick).
What do you think? Should women who have almost finished their career be asked to work two more years to bail out our over-stretched state pension system? And how would you persuade men who won’t or can’t support their children to find both the incentive and the means to do so?
Amanda
Scary statistic of the day:
60,000 people in this country relied on at least one food parcel last year. Check out the Trusselltrust.org
Deal of the day:
On a brighter note – the Debenhams sale has started – hurray! 50% off and 2% savings for your children if you shop through KidStart. Forced labour?
I know we are all living longer, and the state pension system will collapse if we don’t find a way for those who can provide for their own future to do more, but it does seem a tad rich, with so many people out of work, to force those who have already raised their families and can just about see the finishing line, to be landed with two more years at the coal face, or rather call centre.
Thanks to proposals in today’s Pensions Bill debate, some women in their fifties will be forced to work three more years than they had planned and not be allowed to retire, as they expected at 62 but obliged to work until they are 65.
Especially when the news coincides with David Cameron’s blatantly populist pop at deadbeat dads. For a supposedly well-educated man, David Cameron does come out with some po-faced nonsense. Suggesting that dads who fail to support their children can somehow be shamed into compliance shows such an utter lack of awareness of the real world that it is almost endearing.
Shame means something to people like David Cameron because he has something to lose.
For someone so desperate, desolate, and despairing as to be unable or unwilling to support their own child, shame is either a constant companion or a luxury they dispensed with years ago.
I don’t believe you can shock people into taking financial responsibility. It takes years, sometimes generations, to cotton on to the idea of delayed gratification. It’s a concept I still struggle with every day and I have had every advantage known to man (and woman) – stable family background, excellent role models, financial stability tempered by day to day frugality….(Holidays in the sun? Tick. Same swimsuit for five years? Tick).
What do you think? Should women who have almost finished their career be asked to work two more years to bail out our over-stretched state pension system? And how would you persuade men who won’t or can’t support their children to find both the incentive and the means to do so?
Amanda
Scary statistic of the day:
60,000 people in this country relied on at least one food parcel last year. Check out the Trusselltrust.org
Deal of the day:
On a brighter note – the Debenhams sale has started – hurray! 50% off and 2% savings for your children if you shop through KidStart.
Thanks to proposals in today’s Pensions Bill debate, some women in their fifties will be forced to work three more years than they had planned and not be allowed to retire, as they expected at 62 but obliged to work until they are 65.
Especially when the news coincides with David Cameron’s blatantly populist pop at deadbeat dads. For a supposedly well-educated man, David Cameron does come out with some po-faced nonsense. Suggesting that dads who fail to support their children can somehow be shamed into compliance shows such an utter lack of awareness of the real world that it is almost endearing.
Shame means something to people like David Cameron because he has something to lose.
For someone so desperate, desolate, and despairing as to be unable or unwilling to support their own child, shame is either a constant companion or a luxury they dispensed with years ago.
I don’t believe you can shock people into taking financial responsibility. It takes years, sometimes generations, to cotton on to the idea of delayed gratification. It’s a concept I still struggle with every day and I have had every advantage known to man (and woman) – stable family background, excellent role models, financial stability tempered by day to day frugality….(Holidays in the sun? Tick. Same swimsuit for five years? Tick).
What do you think? Should women who have almost finished their career be asked to work two more years to bail out our over-stretched state pension system? And how would you persuade men who won’t or can’t support their children to find both the incentive and the means to do so?
Amanda
Scary statistic of the day:
60,000 people in this country relied on at least one food parcel last year. Check out the Trusselltrust.org
Deal of the day:
On a brighter note – the Debenhams sale has started – hurray! 50% off and 2% savings for your children if you shop through KidStart.